I am grateful that The Philadelphia Inquirer printed this letter. Something is very, very wrong in the decisions relating to this tragic case. Among them, the crime scene was cleaned before a full investigation was possible. Relatedly, far too many vulnerable children under our care die. If you have interest, please visit my papers at the UPenn Archives for photos and info about them.

To the editor:

Try as I may, I can’t wrap my head around Chief Medical Examiner Lindsay Simon’s recent ruling that 27-year-old Ellen Greenberg’s stabbing death was by suicide.

You most likely are familiar with the details of the case: In January 2011, Greenberg was found on the kitchen floor of the Manayunk apartment she shared with her fiancé, Sam Goldberg, a politically connected producer at NBC Sports. Greenberg had been stabbed 20 times, and she was discovered by Goldberg, who was never considered a suspect or charged with any crime.

Simon, in her recent review, which was prompted by two lawsuits Greenberg’s parents filed against the city, discovered 20 additional bruises and three additional “perforations of her skin” never before documented, raising the number of bruises to 31 and stab wounds — including one in the back of her neck — to 23. Well, I’m not a medical examiner, a criminal investigator, a police officer, an assistant DA, or an attorney. But I have so many questions.

Although Simon states that all of the wounds and bruises could have been self-inflicted, it seems to me that only a skilled contortionist could accomplish what was described. Did Simon conduct further interviews to validate her conclusions? Did she examine Greenberg’s emails?

Mostly, though, I remain clueless about how, through the long years since Greenberg’s death, her parents, Joshua and Sandra Greenberg, have held on to any semblance of the ability to rest, to sleep — or even breathe.

SaraKay Smullens
Philadelphia

Published in The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 20, 2025

I am very pleased that Linda Grobman assigned The Roses to me. It is not a film for everyone, but it does underline the importance of preserving love wherever it is found.

Read the full review of The Roses on socialworker.com

Read the full review on socialworker.com

by SaraKay Smullens, MSW, LCSW, DCSW, CGP, CFLE, BCD

      Before I write a word about the 2025 exceedingly unsettling satirical comedy, The Roses, a remake of the 1989 film, War of the Roses, based on the 1981 novel of the same name, I must say how grateful I am that the marriage counselor consulted by the film’s protagonists is not portrayed as a social worker. You would have to go a long, long way to find a more poorly trained, clueless, and misdirected mental health professional. Whew!

     Of course, the therapist, Janice (Belinda Bromilow) cannot help herself—her words are written for her. This reality established, since any specific discussion about the plot of this film will lead to spoilers, I offer this for your concentration: Think about two highly successful, kind, talented people you care deeply for who marry, and have children—and then a domino of life upheavals hits hard, throwing their established societal roles and finances in complete disarray. Their story is then presented to viewers in the most exaggerated satire.

     This analogy established, back to the one and only marriage counseling session of Theo (Benedict Cumberbatch), an out of the box, uncompromising architect, and his wife Ivy Rose (Olivia Colman), a talented aspiring chef. Ivy and Theo are two Brits who fall madly, devotedly, supportively in love, marry, have twin children, Hattie (Hala Finley, Delaney Quinn as young Hattie ) and Roy (Wells Rappaport, Ollie Robinson as young Roy), and 10 years later leave their London home to settle in artistic, compelling Mendocino, California—pricey, but not to be confused with the more exclusive Montecito, where Prince Harry and his wife Meghan moved, joining Oprah Winfrey, Jennifer Aniston, Tom Cruise, Gwyneth Paltrow, and other media royalty.

At a time when many of our vital, relied upon institutions are threatened, I am deeply grateful that the leaders of The Philadelphia Inquirer have refused to be intimidated. Although today understanding root causes of behaviors and decisions that threaten all we hold is devalued, the Inquirer printed my letter about how important this approach is in protecting our survival:

To the editor:

Many Americans who aren’t in the MAGA camp often ask why our 47th president is attracted to despots, has contempt for our allies, and withdraws government resources from our fellow citizens in times of crisis and need.

I believe that addressing the “why” can be effectively answered by viewing Donald Trump’s childhood through a psychosocial lens — how someone’s psychological state is shaped by their environment and experiences - which is an area I’ve worked in for nearly six decades.

We have enough information about the Trump family’s history to know that unaddressed trauma dominated our president’s youth, dramatically impacting his leadership capacities today.

From his earliest years, Trump watched his older brother, Fred Jr., eight years his senior, assailed with shame and humiliation from his father and namesake, a ruthless real estate developer who demeaned his son’s ideas relentlessly. To buffer the pain of a sadistic father, Fred turned to alcohol, destroying himself, dying at age 42.

Engrained in the future president was a written-in-stone awareness: If he ever dared to question his father’s mindset, he, too, would be destroyed.

To survive, he became his father’s bullying, corrupt clone, believing that only those with the capacity for cruelty, disregard for ethical behavior, and contempt for law were real men.

Withheld respect for individual ideas and direction, a vital confidence-building aspect of our formative years, sheds light on our president’s continuous attempts to prove his strength and virility through what is, in essence, denied self-hate displaced on others — “acting out” by ridiculing those seen as weak, demonizing those with opposing views, tasteless references to his virility, compulsive womanizing, outlandish “endless gold” materialism, and incessant demands for praise and stroking.

And importantly, Trump — in an echo of his relationship with his father — reveres Vladimir Putin and other dictators, longs to emulate them, and is deathly afraid to oppose them.

As he continues trying to prove to himself, his country, and the world that he is not a coward, our president’s “acting out” could lead to disaster.

SaraKay Smullens
Philadelphia

Published in The Philadelphia Inquirer, Sptember 22, 2025